digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Nearly half of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

breitbart.com — Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday. However, Democratic leaders STILL appear unlikely to pursue such a course.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Ricemanstm, on 10/11/2007, -54/+19Okay, so 45% people in this country have no idea what impeachment means. Hint, it has nothing to do with peaches. Another feel good poll for the loony left I suppose. It's not gonna happen people, not ever gonna happen. 2008 is way to important and NO one is going to do anything that might jeopardize their chances.
    • rollem, on 10/11/2007, -7/+28Fewer people supported impeachment for Clinton almost exactly 8 years ago.
      • Pimptastic, on 10/11/2007, -18/+6fewer people had the internet when Clinton was in office. Meaning less potential idiots screaming about something not based on facts but on their opinion or what they think is the truth.



        (this is not a bash on liberals, Ill be leading the charge when the Democrats take the white house in 08 and posting every bad thing and blowing it out of proportion)
        • ibgarrett, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3WTF does the Internet have anything to do with it? If you had bothered to fact check how the survey was done - it was done by telephone! But I guess it's o.k. for Bush and his administration to break all the laws they have been. It must be nice to be able to go through life being so ignorant about what really is going on and making up your own truth. But then again, that's what Bush is doing.
      • mdhauke, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Less then half in a liberal dominated internet? A scientific poll from a representative sample would show probably less than 15% support impeachment.
    • NgrHader, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9And more than Half dont...see how you can twist that around?
      • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5That's not necessarily true. Some might be on the fence. Some might have no opinion....and give Monkey Boy a few more months and a few more fugged up decisions and they'll be calling for impeachment too.
      • biotch, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6that doesnt matter... the fact that NEARLY half support it is the extraordinary thing.... It rarely gets that high.
    • drakethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Just remember Rice that when you say that kind of mockery *****, 1 in 2 people think you're a complete moron.
    • scoobydoo84, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@ricemanstm
      And of course idiots like you have no idea what the constitution, leadership, democracy. Its also clear that W has dethroned virtually any other human on earth from the throne of the word loony and taken over. If you gave a damn about America more than W you would also be calling for the impeachment of this incompetent Neanderthal. You are right though most of the cowards on the Democratic side will not go for it with the exception of Kucinich, who actually gives a damn about this country.
    • rlegions, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5@scoobydoo84
      of course idiots like you have a freakin' idea of how the constitution , leadership and democracy work.
    • NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Impeachment would only make them the congress look smarter... It wouldn't jeopardize their chances.
  • u2wedge, on 10/11/2007, -10/+73and in other News... George Bush in favor of making Peach official fruit of the USA based on recent poll numbers.
    • Ricemanstm, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4Niiiice!
      • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8That comment is reserved for sexed up teachers
    • Squarsh, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1look -- it's the democratic leadership:

      http://www.premierphotographer.com/images/b44.jpg
    • epicstruggle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6We dont live in a democracy but a republic. If you really wanted democracy here are some other poll numbers that might make you think twice:
      More than 50% support:
      --ban on gay marriage
      --flag amendment prohibiting its burning
      --limits on abortion
      Those are just 3, check www.pollingreport.com for more.
      • sabach, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You are correct, precisely we live in a bureaucratic representative republic. However we live in a time when a true democracy could actually be formed. Do I think that's what we should? I'm not so sure.
    • djlosch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1if 50-60% of the US wanted bush in the first place, it's only logical that 50-40% want impeachment. regardless of whether you favor impeachment, how is this news?
  • amer01, on 10/11/2007, -30/+8 Never do they tell you WHY they(the left) want this. I'm sure we'll be hearing this nonsense for at least another 20 yrs, long after bush is gone. But by all means, go for it! I love it when my tax dollars are wasted on frivolous puff pieces. Whatever makes them sleep better..
    • UnFriendlyFire, on 10/11/2007, -8/+26I will tell you why I want it.
      1) Violating the constitution (habeas corpus,posse comitatus)
      2) Destroying national sovereignty (NAU)
      3) False and illegal war-for-profit

      • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -20/+61/ A lie 2/ A lie 3/ A lie. So far you are batting 0.
        • GreyICE, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5This is the first of more than a dozen comments by you in this thread already, every one rabidly pro-Bush, every one attacking people who are making sense.

          Paid Shill? Where else do you find this kind of time?
        • cyberstall, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9sonofdy1, remember me? I said I don't bother blocking you because you sometimes make valid arguments, well, you're an idiot, and you're now being added to my blocklist. 1) not a lie, Patriot Act. 2) not a lie, legislation was passed in 2005 for the united states constitution to be anulled by 2010 to make way for the NAU. 3) you're kidding yourself if you think that we're over there fighting them so they don't come here to fight us.

          moron.
          • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I tried appealing to this person's better nature but he's inherently cynical apparently. This unfounded cynicism will be the downfall of this country.
    • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -16/+3You would think we would have learned from the crap in the 90's but oh no, we have to go and waste more time and money on political witchhunts.
      • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8sonofdy: don't try and make political equivalence out of persecuting a guy for LYING ABOUT SEX and a President who thinks he cannot have too much power. Please.
      • biotch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1hah .... use your damn brain sonofdy and try to discern the difference
    • MarkCiccone, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27Oh so nearly 10 trillion dollars of debt, over $500 billion of which was spent on the pointless Iraq War isn't wasting taxes?
    • scoobydoo84, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Frivolous?? What asylum gave you a computer to type with?? Clearly they are not worried about you escaping. Anyone who thinks what W has done to this country is frivolous is frankly a bigger traitor to this country than al qaida. Only a ignorant jackass who has no concept of the spirit of freedom would reduce the deeds of W to merely frivolous. With citizens like you who needs terrorists, your ignorance will do this country in. Keep it up you ignorant brain dead fool!!
    • ryanissuper, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Half of the country is not "the left".
  • zobs, on 10/11/2007, -7/+44Now the problem is actually the DEM' s inaction....
    • Andronicus1717, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4You need a simple majority in the house to impeach the president. You need a 2/3 majority vote in the senate to actually oust the president. There is no way they can get a 2/3 majority in the the senate at this point so impeaching the president is simply a waste of resources (note Clinton impeachment hearings) and to do so would be a bad faith political move with no real outcome except to add a keyed note in a history book.
      • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I disagree. Whether removal will be completed, this is such a crooked regime that impeachment proceedings should at least be initiated.
      • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I disagree. It sends a strong message, and it will force many Republicans to either stand with a deeply unpopular leader (which means legislative gains for the Dems) or else to turn on Bush (impeachent).

        And with how often stuff has been filibustered in the senate recently, or any big important legislation vetoed, I think it's worth it when you add the "send a message in the history books" angle.

        Imagine people looking back to the 2000's in the way we pore over the framers of the constitution. (Yes, a stretch, but bear with me here.) Standing up against unconstitutional behavior is the right thing to do. Remember, we're not even talking about personal foibles, or even personal criminal behavior, but unconstitutional behavior, which is most certainly under the zone of "right kinds of reasons to impeach".
        • CourtesyFlush, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2The Democrats new secret weapon:: Strong and indignant symbolic chastisement.

          A sure bet when dealing with evil doers!
          • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Good thing impeachment isn't just symbolic.

            I mean, the Republicans already tried symbolic crap that with the Schiavo debacle.
          • CourtesyFlush, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Impeachment hearings are symbolic if there is no possible way in hell to ever gain enough votes.

            As it stands right this instant, less than 1% of Congress favors impeachment. If this is all the official support activists can manage to gain after several years of habitually posting impeachment crap on the intarweb, impeachment might happen sometime after the year 2300.

            Math is against you.
    • Loonacy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4No, the problem now is apathy. The Dems don't want to go to the effort of impeachment so they give us little, symbolic gestures to let us know they're on our side. I mean, we're basically telling them we can't stand Republicans so who else are we going to vote for? We (as a whole) are too apathetic to come up with a 3rd choice. We depend on the media to tell us who our candidates are, and the media doesn't want to lose ratings by focusing on 3rd party candidates.
      I predict our apathy and this two-party system will eventually lead to the downfall of the USA.
      • Loonacy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Another thing to think about, along the same line as my previous post: The Democrats don't want to impeach Bush, because it sets precedent against the very same things they plan to do once they get control. If they don't impeach now, then when they get caught doing the same thing it will be impossible for the Republicans to impeach because it would make them look like hypocrites. "Well you didn't support impeachment back when Bush did these same things, so this is just a partisan witchhunt."
        • biotch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1sheesh ... have you paid any attention to the change in political agenda since republicans took office?
    • Shadowe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Impeachment at this point would be a waste of time and resources. The Congress has more important things to work on than solving a problem that's going to take care of itself in 17 months. The whole process would likely take almost that long, and we would only be rid of bush for about 3 months. Lets let go of the bush hatred. He is gone. Lets move on to bigger and better things. Bush is pretty powerless at this point being a lame duck.
  • UnFriendlyFire, on 10/11/2007, -12/+50Impeachment primer for those who keep saying 'but the have to be guilty of a crime'

    Impeachment is the equivalent of a grand jury indictment. It is the FIRST step in removing someone from office.
    From Wikipedia:
    In the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. At the federal level, different standards apply when the impeachment involves a member of the executive branch or of the judiciary (and dispute currently exists over the use of impeachment against members of the legislative branch). For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached. Although treason and bribery are obvious, the Constitution is silent on what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor." Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense. In 1970, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Four years later, Ford would assume the Presidency, following the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

    So, yes both Bush and Cheney could be impeached. So shut up already.
    • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -25/+3So you approve of partisan witch hunts based on lies. Cool. You are no different from the gop in the 90's.
      • rollem, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10The potential charges against Bush are far different than the charges against Clinton. A witch hunt implies that a group is going after one or a few individuals based on false or frivolous charges. Bush is the only president to actually admit to an impeachable offense- wiretapping without a warrant when a system is in place to quickly (or even after-the-fact) obtain warrants. Since he admitted it, it is not false. As for frivolous, that's for the people to decide.
        • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Also remember that the reasons for impeaching bush aren't personal (e.g. adultery), or personally criminal (e.g. theft or perjury), but actually either unconstitutional (e.g. habeas corpus issues) or rooted in government-branch-level criminal behavior (FISA).
    • brooklynboy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2The argument isn't whether or not impeachment is possible. The argument is is it viable and does it make sense less than a year away from a new President? What would the purpose be? To show that the vocal minority can make even more noise by impeaching a President?

      Why not be more vocal and vote in a President who will serve the people, protect the country, and provide security while protecting rights? Impeachment does nothing. Actually going out and VOTING does do something, so stop talking and start voting.
    • grakker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I really want to bury you as a troll, but the fact is what you are saying is true. I keep telling people,"We voted this monkey in, not once but twice." And they always reply really indignantly,"Not ME!" To which I reply, the American people, this is a democracy.

      ***** I want to leave.
      • gpmidi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Your forgetting that the majority didn't vote for him.
  • mora68, on 10/11/2007, -19/+20IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY/PELOSI et al.
    Flush the whole bunch out of office.
    Let's start a fresh flower garden from the s**t left over.
    • TwistedSheep, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Err, why Pelosi? Just because she's the new madam speaker of the house?
    • Kr4t05, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Great idea... But... wait... Who's going to run the country while we go through the logistical nightmare of re-electing everyone?

      Just wait until '08.
    • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Um...why Pelosi?
      • knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2because she has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and her inaction is intolerable.
      • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Better than Bush's actions against said document.
      • kobewan0824, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0why pelosi? cause shes an ***** democrat
  • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -23/+7They do not impeach because they know they can't prove their claims. If they had to, most Americans would soon see through them. The "crimes" are far more politically use full as slogans or "bumper stickers". If I were a partisan democrat, i wouldn't want impeachment, it would actualy hurt the dnc in 2008.
  • kingygk, on 10/11/2007, -12/+46The funny thing is that the Democrat congress approval ratings are even lower than President Bushes.
    • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1Impeachment of bush and cheney gives us a president who has a lower rating right now than bush or cheney. Ironic.

      • Ricemanstm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Huh?
        • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Look up who becomes president if bush and cheney get impeached.
          • Pimptastic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1They wont be able to impeach them both at the same time. once one impeached, then removed from office you either would have Bush as president with no VP, since congress would not vote on a new one, nor would the republicans allow the president ot be impeached with the threat of loosing the executive branch.

            or... worst case senerio, Bush is impeached and removed from office.... and we get President Cheney. Granted he is a good politician (in the whole nixon era style republican), he just sucks at the whole playing nice with others. He would imediatly pardon Bush. And the dems in congress would then block any VP nominations so as not to give any Republican a boost in the 08 election.

            Pelosi would never be president unless both bush and cheney are incapable of holding the office (hmm, wait good joke here). Both would never be impeached at the same time. You would see partisan politics become so ugly it would make the 2000 recount look like better times.
        • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Times up. Pelosi would become president. Gee i wonder why democrats might support impeachment. But anyway, pelosi has pushed congressional approval ratings way below bushes. As low as 19%.
          • Loonacy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"pelosi has pushed congressional approval ratings way below bushes."
            How do you figure? I contend that Congressional approval rating is so low because people don't approve that they aren't impeaching. I have just as much evidence for my statement as you do for yours.

            By the way... "bushes"? Wow.
    • atheinostic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Congress' approval rating was higher than Bush's until the Iraq capitulation bill
    • Djerrid, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Congress has always had low approval ratings. The highest approval rating congress ever had was 42% and that was back in 1973. But congress has now reached a new low of 14%. So a lot of seats may change hands in 2008.
      http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27946
    • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2That is because the Congress gave Mr. 28% approval ratting a free gift by capitulating on the Iraq Spending Bill. They sold out their supporters.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5WTF are you talking about? Where are these alleged statistics you claim to have? I've got my own here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_060307.html

      (6b)DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS APPROVAL: 44%
      (6a)REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS APPROVAL: 36%
      (1)BUSH APPROVAL: 35%

      44>35, but you seem to be saying otherwise.
      • kobewan0824, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0dude, this congress sucks ass. they are a bunch of pussies. as all dems are
  • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -17/+11I would actualy like to see the dems try to impeach bush. Maybe then thier talking points would finaly have to be proven. Not one of their charges has been proven at all. not one.
    • feckineejit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3WTF are you saying none of what charges have been proven? this administration is. rife with corruption and scandal - just because Tony Snow comes out and SAYS everything's A OK doesn't mean it is
      • CourtesyFlush, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1And, by that same exact reasoning, just because every activist goober on the intarweb says something doesn't mean ***** either.

        Say whatever you want, but just remember, saying is much easier than proving.
  • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -13/+15http://americanresearchgroup.com/

    Here is the actual poll. Note they interviewed almost 10% more democrats than republicans. Looking at their other polls, they seem to interview more democrats than republicans or independents on a consistent basis. Can we trust this poll?
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8Could that possibly be because, in a random sampling of citizens, THERE ARE MORE DEMS THAN REPUBLICANS? Nah, it must be librull bias.
      • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2Nice try at an excuse. But go on believing bias polls and praying at the democratic altar. Alll hail the dnc. LOL
        • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5its "BIASED" not "bias." I cant even recount all the times I've seen diggnuts make this mistake. Learn the English language if you want people to take you seriously.
        • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1oooohhhhh the spelling police. Im not impressed.
        • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3haha, spelling? I wasn't correcting your "spelling."
        • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Grammar then, who cares? you have no point here so you tried another hate attack. No big deal, that's all liberals have these days.
        • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2calling a scientific poll "bias" [sic] isn't a hate attack?
      • Ricemanstm, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5More Dems than Republicans? How many red states? How many blue? How many votes were Republican? How many were Dem? Hmm..? Anyone? Anyone? Yeah, thought so.
        • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4You mean in the last election ('06?) Who has the majority in the Senate? Who has the majority in the House? Anyone? Anyone? Beuler?
        • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Democrats. Who now have an approval rating of 19% YAY democrats. Could that be because they are more interested in pointless investigations for partisan gain than in actualy doing anything?
        • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3So you agree with my assertion that the larger % of Dems in the poll is accounted for by the FACT that there are more Democrats in the US than Republicans, good for you. Now lets see what Riceman has to say about it.
        • sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Speak for yourself. Democrats hold congress right now. That's what i agreed with. In fact the largest group of Americans are INDEPENDENTS. Which are also under-represented in this poll.
        • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The poll that tells you the largest group of Americans are Independents is "bias!" What now?
        • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3That was a little joke I made. But seriously, if you actually read the discussion you are responding to, Riceman was claiming, based on the 2004 election results, that there are more GOP voters than Dems. I refuted that by pointing out that in a more recent election, there were more Dem voters. You agreed with me, therefore validating my point.
    • mightyzug, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4you're all ***** idiots if you think you can trust ANY poll out there. there is no such thing as an unbiased statistic.
      • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Wow, you went to school didn't you.
    • quarkie, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1So let me get this straight...there is a poll that says:
      a)45% of people want bush to be impeached
      b)but only 1% of the republican voters support Ron Paul

      *Digg explodes as the decision about whether to trust the poll is too hard to answer*
    • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4sonofdy: do they pay you to write such crap? If this poll isn't right, what about the hundreds polls over the last 2.5 years which have put Monkey Boy below 50%. And where was Clinton as the impeachment trial was going on in Dec. '98....70%. Goes to show that the American people know ***** when they see it.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I call *****. How the hell does that change the results as long as the sample is random and representative? The fact that more Democrats were polled doesn't mean it's unrepresentative of the nation, considering virtually all polls find more people willing to say they're Democrats than those willing to say they're Republicans.
  • kamel, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4Pelosi is just trying to snipe Hillary and become the first women pres.
  • Galvani, on 10/11/2007, -14/+7Impeachment won't do a darn thing to the sock puppet. They need to try him and Cheney for high crimes and treason against the state. They should than both be convicted and receive life sentences, at the very least, for what they've done.
    • jlbgilbert, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0Get some help or soon you will wake up and jump off a cliff when Ron Paul only gets 2 percent of the vote.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Impeachment is the only way the President can be charged with a crime, I think. Someone want to check that?
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15That poll is BS unless it was followed by this question....

    "Do you know what impeach means?"

    Nobody likes Bush, but c'mon, you know us Americans, half those people don't even know what it means.
    • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2You don't know what you're talking about. The American people remember just fine the hack job that the Repubs did on Clinton in '98 and '99. Don't patronize the American people.
      • offwithyourtv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1As long as there are Americans who still believe the Sun revolves around the Earth or that the universe was created in less than a week and that once upon a time dinosaurs coexisted with people...I'm sorry. I just can't have that much confidence in my country's citizens. I'm sure many still don't really understand impeachment.
        • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This guy is basically suggesting that people don't realize that impeachment means the formal charges made against the Prez, and, if they stick, the presentation of the case and its vote in the Congress. It's such a cynical argument, he's basically trying to undercut the argument for impeachment (that the Cheney administration is completely feckless) with the grounds that we have to know what they mean first. Like the Republicans thought for one second about that in '98. Lying about a blow job from a chubby intern. No one died. Only damage was to Bill and Hilary's marriage. I don't want my reasoning questioned by an asshat of a neocon bootlicker of a Prez who's at 28%. Forget about whether people know the particulars of the impeachment process-it's there for when your President IS A CROOK. And everyone can see that's the case. Pathetic this ***** defends the Cheney administration which couldn't give a crap about him.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0You think anybody was paying attention to that? How many millions watched survivor when it came out? Exactly.
        • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Survivor started in mid-'99. Clinton was found guilty of a couple of the counts in January '99. And do you really think peoples' interest in Survivor would have precluded them from following the impeachment trial?
    • gpmidi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1When they voted for Bush
      most people thought they were voting for the worst dressed sentient being in the universe contest.
      -sa
  • Chewie67, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5Only half?

    Did the other half not understand the question?
  • JoeDiggsIt, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5STFU Digg.
    • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3ironic comment given the username
    • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Uh, talking to a computer program? Nice.....like the Clapper with Digg. "Digg-OFF". Dumbass.
      • JoeDiggsIt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Digg isn't a computer program, it's a website, and I was speaking to the Digg community.
        • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1He's got smarts, don't he
        • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Digg is a program. It wouldn't run if there wasn't some programming instructions.
  • 7Mystery, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2MORE then HALF of US voted for Bush
    • Scott.Lyles, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4more than half of the people who voted in the US, voted for Bush the second time around

      more people, who voted the first time around, voted for Gore
      • marcosagostos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I think that was the point...according to Greg Palast of the BBC..no, no we didn't. Not for either election.
      • ljw5021, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Who cares? He won the electoral vote both times. The election process in this country isn't who is more popular, it's who is more strategical in presenting their ideas.
  • rlegions, on 10/11/2007, -16/+14Man, digg has became so stupid lately. Every single day there is at least one article related to bush impeachment and at least one for marijuana.
    • killeryugi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8You forgot the 10 a day about the iPhone
      • TheOther1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2And the 8 a day about how Ron Paul had the first iPhone and uses Macs in his campaign office and is leading the polls.
    • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Look, Digg is a democratic program that responds to what people want. That way, rather than a Congress which doesn't do what the majority of American people want, Digg does work perfectly democratically. It is the perfect example of a democratic system. It's just you don't like the results, apparently.
      • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4that's assuming a person only votes once
        • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2That's all you can do. It's certainly a lot more reliable than a Diebold voting machine.
  • stubear, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13What's with all the ***** poll submissions lately? Especially these stupid ***** ones that clearly contradict one another. Either all Americans are stupid or we all support Bush being impeached. You can't have it both ***** ways. Pick one the shut the ***** up and stop submitting these stupid polls.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"Either all Americans are stupid or we all support Bush being impeached. You can't have it both ***** ways."

      Uhm... that's correct. Your two entirely made up statistics are not both possible. Fortunately for the rest of us, neither of them are real.
  • dunner777, on 10/11/2007, -10/+14This is dumb. The impeachment talk is just getting old. Even top political analyst on CNN say that impeachment is out because it would take at least a year and a half to get it done and guess what Bush is out in a year and a half.
    • mightyzug, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7CNN sucks.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Back in 1999 a lot of people were talking about how based on British Common Law, impeachment can be done even after the guy has left office.
    • justinjstark, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It should be done, if nothing else, out of principle. The current administration has set a precedent for future presidents to ignore the laws and set his own rules. We need to take a stand now and let this president as well as future presidents know that we will not stand for it.
      • gpmidi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I agree. It should be done just to send the message that the people will not put up with this kind of *****.
  • 4fun, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11I don't see democratic leaders doing something positive .
  • murphygr, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4*copy* *paste* *copy* *paste*
    • killeryugi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1*copy* *paste* *copy* *paste* oops
  • clark24, on 10/11/2007, -10/+11I hate Bush/Cheney as much as the next guy, but half? I really doubt it's even that much. In a better educated society it would be closer to 100% though.

    It still amazes me that people get more upset over an intern blowjob, than they do over the blood spilled of our 3000+ soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the ties to big oil, the DOD contracts, etc.. What a twisted set of morals we have in this country.
    • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"I hate Bush/Cheney as much as the next guy, but half? I really doubt it's even that much."

      Maybe pollsters should just go by instinct, then?
      • clark24, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Forgive me for questioning the validity of a poll. I forgot that statistics show 100% of statistics are true.
  • Bogie22, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Nancy Pelosi is a man right?
  • OhTheHumanity1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+61,100 people polled... not exactly... conclusive... And you all have to admit that a poll of Digg users will likely NOT be split 50/50 down political factions either. Don't count on 50% of the U.S. even having this in their mind. The biggest flaw in these phone interviews is the power of suggestion
    • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31100 is enough for statistical significance. +/- 5% 19 times out of 20
      • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1When they do exit polls, 1000 people is usually more than enough, that's right. So OhThe, don't try your ill-informed, false arguments when you obviously don't know.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21,100 is not enough? Clearly you don't understand statistics.
    • escheriv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5For the love of God, I wish people would at least BEGIN to understand statistical sampling before spouting off. Every single poll that's posted I see someone saying "Well they only asked 1000 people! That can't mean anything!" Educate yourself.

      I'll even get you started:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_sampling
      • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I tried to make that point, but I don't think logic works here.
    • offwithyourtv, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I think the biggest flaw in phone interviews is that "phone" part. Since much of the younger (but old enough to vote) and more educated part of the population now uses a cellular phone as a primary phone, and these polls call home phones, they're leaving out an important demographic.
  • clos1519, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Alright lets not digg another story about how nobody will do anything to impeach the m**********r! Im getting tired of hearing the same thing over and over again, when we have good news about this subject (which might be never) then we should all digg..
  • DuffyDirect, on 10/11/2007, -8/+445% isn't "nearly half"! 49.9% is nearly half!
    • wakeofinsanity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Would you say that 9/10 is nearly 1? 45/50 is 90%... so 90% of half the population (or nearly half) wants the president impeached
  • nycmac247, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8WHAT IN THE ***** DOES IT TAKE!?!?!?!!?
    • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I think Bush is going to have to be caught on camera killing a child with a blunt object or something. Apparently, his behavior otherwise is exemplary.
    • GreedKills, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2its going to take a media that isnt a bunch of wimps and that actually give a damn about news rather than money, but dont expect to see that happen
  • ysquirtle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6All the news about America being stupid lately leads me to believe all the people in the article are wrong.
  • mikemil828, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Even If the Democrats did impeach him, it wouldn't matter much, if the republicans in a much better and consolidated position couldn't throw out Clinton (who was indeed impeached, but not thrown out of office, there is a difference pplz) then the Democrats sure as hell won't be able to throw out Bush despite having a good reason to do so.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"if the republicans in a much better and consolidated position couldn't throw out Clinton"

      Huh? Public support for impeaching Bush is tremendously higher than it was for Clinton, and the charges (mainly unconstitutional stuff) are vastly more relevant and meaningful.
    • mikemil828, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2what I meant by that statement wasn't that the republicans had a better argument to impeach Clinton, it was that the republicans are better organized and unified under one direction than the democrats are to be able to push through an impeachment, and even then they just couldn't throw him out. How can the democrats, who can themselves barely agree to anything, successfully throw out Bush? Face it, the best they can really do is limit the amount of damage Bush can do to America for the rest of his term.
  • brycelb, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1More crazy talk. How can we trust anything in this article when they refer to Kucinich as a long shot presidential candidate. When did no shot become long shot. Just because your realatives and a couple of hippies vote for doesn't mean your in the game. America is not that insane, yet. The fact that Dennis is the one pushing for this should trigger a WTF response from everyone.
  • brooklynboy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7You know, I respect DIGG for the openness of opinion and attention paid to all issues COMPUTERS and TECH and even politics. But this is getting STUPID with the amounts of attention being paid to IMPEACHING BUSH at any cost. Look - he's going to be out in 2008. Instead of giving reasons of why he should be IMPEACHED, why not present ideas as to WHO A GOOD SUCCESSOR SHOULD BE? Why not present NEW IDEAS as to how the office of the PRESIDENT could be occupied by someone who will respect the law, the people and the other two branches of government by not circumventing power? Iraq was the WORST thing this president has done, and it put us in a VIETNAM LIKE situation. Our troops NEED TO LEAVE or we need to end this with a NUKE - one or the other. Bush FAILED on Iraq. That is where I agree. But impeachment on something that has been going on for YEARS by every other president ILLEGALLY - SPYING , TORTURE, SECRET WARS - - is REDICULOUS in a post 9/11 world. It's TEMPORARY, and will be changed by the next President. SO why not focus on who the next person should be, rather than trying to pay back the GOP for impaching your belowed BILL CLINTON? Why not say, "HILLARY CLINTON is better because..." or "OBAMA will do a better job Because..." or "McCain will end the war by..." etc, etc. This is getting STUPID with this impeachment crap. So let's get SMART and start digging up REAL IDEAS, different options and moving forward that focusing on this failed President!!
    • ysquirtle, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Haha, I can imagine Bush leaving the office and everyone saying, "Well wtf do we do now?"
      • iluvgossip, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1The fun thing will be if a Democrat is elected. Political nuttiness was bad under Clinton. Now we have the Internet full of squeaky wheels and the moon battery has gone off the charts. The trend line, my guess is, will continue on the course to full insanity under the next President. Suddenly all of these people crying and gnashing their teeth are going to see their Deal Leader the target of all this craziness. Wow, that is gonna be fun!!! I think all of you people who go into a visceral rage over Bush are gonna wake up in a few years and realize that perhaps you've been a tad over dramatic.
  • Gee1004, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3All talk and no action. If he was given a chance to run again. The same dumb ass people will vote for him again.
    • brooklynboy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3I think you mean to say tha tthe same people who talk so loudly about wanting Bush out are the lazy ones who wont even bother voting.
      • Jamihabs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Would it be fair to say that the people that are too lazy to vote are also to lazy to study the issues, learn the relevant facts, put things into proper prospective, look past shallow propaganda, and come to informed opinions? I think so.
  • chamblah, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Here I was thinking that if I removed the politics section in my preferences I wouldn't have to be subjected to this when visiting Digg.
  • strOphe, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Honestly, Cheney had this coming. Outright denying the constitution is like hanging a big red sign with the letters "IRRESPONSIBLE TYRANT" around your neck. Glad to see America (finally) caught on.
  • jasonlfunk, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10No one is going to get impeached. I'm sick of all this hype and articles about it. Get off the band wagon digg. Buried.
  • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Your american two party system has polarized your nation, you need alternatives.
    • cactusmcdougal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1True enough. We do have other parties, but none of them are as well-funded as the Democratic or Republican parties. The "third party" is just there in the election to draw popular votes away from one or the other.
      • kinerry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Wrong, you have libertarians in office, and they are likely to take seats in 2008
    • mikemil828, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3America has been polarized even before it was a nation, from Patriot or Loyalist to the more current Devout God Botherer's or Burn-in-Hell Atheists, there just isn't much middle ground in American culture. Hell we had a civil war over whether or not one man can make another man his property. How can we be something we are not?
      • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2How sad
        • Reedan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I hate defeatists like you. It's sad because the American nation had an internal civil war? I guess the French civil war in the 1870's was sad too, and the Russian civil war in 1917 was a downer for everybody. Civil wars bring about change. If you think that's sad climb back into your damn hole and live in it.
          • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Its sad that you can't have rational discourse without turning everything into the 'you either agree with me or, ***** you'. I really couldn't care about your civil war, but it is possible to make change without killing people.
          • xrenjrvt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Its sad that you can't have rational discourse without turning everything into the 'you either agree with me or, ***** you'. I really couldn't care about your civil war, but it is possible to make change without killing people.
  • wintermd, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6A mere five years before we went into Iraq, every Democrat leader was bellyaching about the need to go to war in Iraq, about how *dangerous* Saddam was, how we needed "regime change" (a term so familiar now, people forget it was CLINTON who coined it viz the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998), how we needed to disarm Iraq, WMD's, nuclear weapons blah-blah-blah. Our number one priority was supposed to have been, eliminating this danger to world peace.
    • iluvgossip, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Wintermed, keep your facts to yourself. We are getting our (Kool-Aid) drink on and don't appreciate the distraction!
    • mre5765, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1From Madam Albright:

      ``We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with
      its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions
      should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must
      prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with
      all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subject.

      Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein?
      When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all
      possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of
      reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam
      Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful. ''

      I recall at some point she complained that Bush I should have toppled Saddam when he had the chance, but
      I am unable to find the quote.
    • ringelman5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The Saddamist had been a CIA funded operative since the early '60s at least, responsible for assasinatons and terror ops.

      His big error was in "over-pumping" Iraq's petro output and driving down the prices at a time when the boys wanted max profits. Further, during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Saddam got too big for hsi boots by raiding the Kuwaiti gold reserves. Which was the reason Bush and his buddy Blair were given the go ahead and used the bogus WMD excuse to invade and spank him.

      Albright was playing her scripted role in advancing the scenario.

      If Hussein had been a good boy and minded what he was told, he would be in power to this day.

      But the Bilderbergers decided this would be a good time to gain full control of the oil and gas reserves in the MIddle East while at the same time having the American national debt finance the whole shooting match (pun intended) and build permanent military bases there to springboard into Syria and Iran.

      In short, Cheney and Bush are treasonous pawns working at the direction of international monetary interests and should both be treated as such and receive the maximum penalty.
  • toddcat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4It's unfortunate that our representatives don't seem to be reading this Digg story and so we may have to let them know a bit more forceably of our distate for the Boy King.
  • MasterThief117, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3So, I am guessing the other half are blind deaf and dumb and don't know whats going on.
    • Jamihabs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I wouldn't be quite that hard on the Democrats.
  • kdor, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2*****
  • quez, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Bush should be impeached. He should also be convicted. The latter is extraordinarilly unlikely, however. Personally, I'd prefer that Congress spends its time trying to figure out how to get the US out of the Iraqi quagmire than spend its time with what would ultimately amount to nothing more than a symbolic '***** you' for Dubya and his friends.
  • SD929, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Total *****.
  • manatee, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2http://digg.com/politics/Majority_of_Americans_Want_to_Keep_Awesome_George_W_Bush_in_Office
  • m0d3s7m1k3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5So? When is all this talk going to end and when are the people going to get their ***** in gear?
  • Jist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Funny how we impeach a president for lying about getting a BJ and we don't bother taking any action against the one who has robbed every american of basic civil liberties....
  • fauxXenophanes, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3You'd have an easier time sticking linda mcdougall back in prison !
    • ringelman5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Or getting Jim McD to spill about Clintoon's bad boy stuff. They made sure to mess up his meds in a terminal fashion, didn't they.
  • Asianwaste, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Over half of America didn't know what they were voting for, let alone know what they are impeaching.
  • mijohnst, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I'm sure this poll was put out in an balanced and unbiased manor...
    • ElwoodHerring, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Manor = large house. Learn to SPELL.
  • virtualmadden, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Statistics, gotta love them. The most accurate and inaccurate science we have these days. Please let's survey my old high school (1.2k students) by telephone (because people love to answer surveys over dinner) and call it a accurate representation of the countries feelings.
  • merrymaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men
    -plato

    I think I will start putting an apathy quote in all the impeachment posts for all the criers. Join me.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.